A Self Assessment of District Policies, Procedures, and Practices for Addressing Disproportionality in

Arkansas Public Schools

Mike Crowley, Administrator

Beverly Smart, Educational Consultant

Lynn Springfield, Educational Consultant

Susan Shurley, Supervisor

Jody Fields, Director IDEA Data & Research

Arkansas Department of Education, Special Education

Monitoring/Program Effectiveness

Updated September 2007
Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Process for Determining That a School District is Triggered in the Area of Disproportionality 4

Identifying and Analyzing District Data on Disproportionality 4

Check list for Five Procedureal Areas: 7

Intervention 7

Referral 8

Evaluation 8

Placement 10

Procedural Safeguards 4

Review of Policies, Procedures and Practices Effecting Disproportionality 4

Attach Evidence to Support Affirmative Responses


Addressing the Challenge of Disproportionality in Arkansas Public Schools

Introduction

The major issue surrounding the concept of disproportionality in special education is the probability of discriminating against students based on race, ethnicity, and special education category. The Arkansas Department of Special Education has long been concerned about the excessive numbers of students placed in special education programs. More recently there is a growing concern for the under identification of students based on race, ethnicity, and special education category. In addition to the overall number of children receiving special education services, the number of culturally and linguistically diverse students placed in special education has been and continues to be of concern.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act require a state agency to collect program information on disproportionality in the state’s special education programs, specifically, Section 618 of the IDEA program information.

(C) Disproportionality requires the following:

(1)  In general, each state that receives assistance under this part … shall provide for the collection and examination of data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race is occurring in the State with respect to ---

(A) the identification of children as children with disabilities, including the identification of children as children with disabilities in accordance with a particular impairment…; and

(B) the placement in particular educational settings of such children.

An understanding of the distinction between the percent of the program by group and the percent of group in the programs are crucial to understanding disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. Some have misunderstood the “disproportionate representation” phenomenon to mean that large percentages of a culturally and linguistically diverse group, for example, African American, are placed in a special education program, while in fact, the term means that the percentage of culturally and linguistically diverse students in the program is larger than the percentage of that group in the educational system as a whole.

When a school district is cited for disproportionality of culturally and linguistically diverse students receiving special education services, being placed in special education categories of mental retardation or emotionally disturbed and/or being served in pullout educational programs, the process of self-evaluation should indicate to the district areas in which improvement can occur, as well as, areas in which the district excels. The process of examining the district’s identification, evaluation, and placement procedures and practices will enable the district to plan and implement effective interventions to remediate the situation.

The underlying assumptions of discrimination are associated with the normalization construct and the causation of poor performance being inherently within the child. If children’s educational experiences are going to be affected by how they perform on norm-based assessment instruments, it is important that these assessments be valid with regard to race and ethnicity. This suggests that culturally and linguistically diverse student performance should be included in the normative sample of tests being used to determine student eligibility for special education services. Likewise, before academic performances of students can be judged to be the result of student factors alone, it is important to assess the total learning environment, which includes curriculum content, instructional materials, quality of instruction, and psychosocial climate of the classroom. It is important to be aware that placing undo importance on norm-reference assessment and child centered constructs will tend to increase the probability that students will be placed in district special education programs.

The purpose of this self assessment is to assist school districts in determining if identified disproportionality in the district is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices. The inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices may cause over or under identification of culturally and linguistically diverse students (a) being referred for special education services, (b) receiving special education, (c) being placed in specific disability categories, and/or (d) receiving these services out of general education settings more than eighty percent of the school day.

Process for Determining That a School District is “Triggered” in the Area of Disproportionality

In order to demonstrate educational equity relative to opportunity, services, and decision making, the percentage of any ethnic/racial group of students receiving special education services in a school district should be proportionally similar to the percentage of ethnic/racial group of students’ district wide. Thus, it is important to ensure that such students in a school district are not disproportionately represented in special education in contrast with such students in the district.

The benchmark for disproportionality over-representation is the difference between district and special education percent by race/ethnicity. This calculation is based on those districts with less than 95% and greater than 5% in any such group. For example, the three-year average percent African American in the district for this subset of districts was 41.09% for the 2005 school year. The difference between district and special education percent African American was 4.541%, with a standard deviation of 8.611%. These averages and standard deviations may change from year to year because they are based on the three most recent years of district data.

The trigger for this indicator is 1 standard deviation beyond the difference for the state, or the mean difference (4.541%) plus 1 standard deviation (8.611%) or 13.152%. Thus, for 2007, any district that had more than 13.152% of the African American ethnic/racial group of students in special education than in general education triggered in the area of disproportionality.

Formula Example: Percent African American in special education – Percent African American in the district = Difference between special education and district.

In 2007 if this value was greater than 13.152 for African American, then your district triggered on this indicator. If this value was negative, you were within the acceptable range (see table below).

Focused Monitoring Disproportionality Over-Representation Trigger Calculation:
Baseline Fiscal Years: 2002, 2003, and 2004
American Indian/ Alaskan Native / Asian/Pacific Islander / African American / Hispanic / Caucasian
Benchmark / 0.040% / -0.065% / 4.541% / -1.512% / -3.004%
Standard Deviation / 0.451% / 0.554% / 8.611% / 3.875% / 9.972%
Trigger Value / 0.491% / 0.489% / 13.152% / 2.364% / 6.968%

The benchmark for disproportionality under-representation is similar to the over-representation calculations. Under-representation is the negative value of the benchmark plus two-standard deviations (-(4.541% + 8.611% + 8.611%) = -21.763%). The reason for using two-standard deviations for under representation lie with the implementation of early intervening services which is resulting in fewer referrals to special education and in turn fewer placements.

Formula Example: Percent African American in special education – Percent African American in the district = Difference between special education and district.

In 2007 if this value was less than -21.763 for African American, then your district would be identified as under-identifying African American students for special education services.

Identifying and Analyzing District Data on Disproportionality

In order for interventions to be effective, it is necessary to know why problems are occurring. To discover why problems are occurring, districts must look at data with regard to school policies, practices, and procedures currently in place in the district. Relevant data to examine may include (1) district October 1, 2006 enrollment by race, (2) special education December 1, 2006 child count by race, (3) special education December 1, 2006 child count by disability and race, (4) the 2006/07 referrals and placements by race, (5) special education December 1, 2006 child count by educational placement and race, (6) Focused Monitoring Profile, and (7) other data deemed necessary by the district. The District’s October 1, 2006 (and previous years) enrollment by race can be downloaded from ADE Data Administration website at http://adedata.k12.ar.us. The special education data, as a series of reports, will be sent to districts required to submit a self assessment.

After an analysis of district data related to problem areas and possible causes have been completed, effective interventions to meet district needs can be selected. If this analysis is not done, interventions may not be effective. The questions/probes on the following pages are designed to help a district “drill down” on issues related to disproportionality. “Drilling down” on available information and data may reveal trends or patterns the district had not been aware of previously, or it may simply confirm what was already suspected.

These questions/probes are not meant to be an exhaustive list, and the district may want to examine other factors. Another source of information to consider is the district’s “Special Education School Self-Assessment” (SESSA) data completed during the 2003/2004 school year. Remember, the purpose of examining all this information is to help districts discover why problems are occurring in order to provide direction in selecting effective interventions.

Disproportionate representation is a problem when students receive low-quality instruction. This problem may arise in the regular classroom, where opportunities for academic success may be restricted, or in the special education classroom, where a student’s educational progress may falter due to lowered or inappropriate expectations and goals. At a minimum, a self-evaluation of disproportionate representation should include a review of the district’s policies and procedures in five specific areas. These include general education intervention, referral, evaluation, placement, and procedural safeguards.


Checklist for Review of Five Procedural Areas: Intervention, Referral, Evaluation, Placement, and Procedural Safeguards

Intervention

/
Indicators /

If yes – provide evidence

/

If no - provide possible recommendations and solutions

/

Personnel Involved

/
Does the district use a specific general education intervention program for students experiencing difficulty in the regular education classroom? (e.g. peer tutoring, after-school remediation program, etc.) If yes, identify where teachers and others interested in the process can find a written description of the program
Does the district (and each building within the district) have a collaborative team structure in place to engage in problem solving and data-based decision making for both behavior and academics?
Does the district provide assistance to regular classroom teachers in the development of specific in-school regular education program accommodations and interventions? If yes, describe the activities/professional development conducted to accomplish this undertaking.
Is the effectiveness of the accommodations and interventions reviewed regularly? If yes, describe when and how this is accomplished.
What does the district use to progress monitor the effectiveness of academic and behavioral interventions?
Have educational intervention programs been implemented in all district schools? A building-by-building review of data may reveal that some school’s programs are not as effective as others as noted by the disproportionate numbers of culturally and linguistically diverse students enrolled in its special education program.
If yes, how is the effectiveness of those building interventions reviewed?
Referral
Referrals are greatly improved when districts can answer “yes” to each of the following questions.
Indicators /

If yes – provide evidence

/

If no - provide possible recommendations and solutions

/

Personnel Involved

Does the district ensure consistent application of the referral criteria? If yes, describe how referrals are monitored.
Does the district randomly review referrals to detect any pattern that might indicate a problem with disproportionately large numbers of children of one race referred by a teacher of another race? If yes, describe how this is accomplished.
Is the effectiveness of the referral policy reviewed?
If yes, describe how that effectiveness is monitored.
Evaluation
This review is intended to provide a greater understanding of the evaluation process and assist district personnel as they monitor their special education culturally and linguistically diverse enrollments.
Indicators /

If yes – provide evidence

/

If no - provide possible recommendations and solutions

/

Personnel Involved

Identify all tests and other educational materials currently used in the evaluation process. Has each been validated for the specific purpose for which it is used?
Are tests and other evaluation materials administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer?
Are all tests utilized by the district tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely designed to provide a single, general intelligence quotient?
Evaluation
This review is intended to provide a greater understanding of the evaluation process and assist district personnel as they monitor their special education culturally and linguistically diverse enrollments.
Indicators /

If yes – provide evidence

/

If no - provide possible recommendations and solutions

/

Personnel Involved

Does the district have well written criteria for the identification of special education students in its policy/procedure manual?
Have tests been selected to ensure an accurate reflection of the student’s aptitude or achievement, or whatever factor the test purports to measure?
In making placement decisions, does the district use a variety of informational sources including: aptitude tests, achievement tests, social or cultural background, adaptive behavior, teacher recommendations, past educational history, physical conditions
Are all the district personnel who participate in placement decisions knowledgeable about: the student, the meaning of the evaluations, placement options, family perspectives
Is all information, regardless of its source, carefully considered and documented?
Identify all tests and other educational materials currently used in the evaluation process. Indicate if each been validated for the specific purpose for which it is used?
Are those conducting the evaluations sensitive to cultural differences between groups?
Placement
The decision to place students in special education carries with it lifetime implications that are not easily overcome. Questions to address in this area include:
Indicators /

If yes – provide evidence